Andy, Sorry for the late response to your message. The updates in -17 were made to address the feedback from John Klensin during the IETF Last Call, which included changing the cardinality to the One or Two (ASCII or SMTPUTF8) Option defined in the IETF-115 presented deck (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/slides-115-regext-draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-cardinality-00). One of the elements of the One or Two (ASCII or SMTPUTF8) Option was to "Provide guidance in draft for the transition period", which is covered in Section 8 "SMTPUTF8 Transition Considerations" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai#section-8 ) with normative language. Below are the options to consider for the working group:
1. Keep Normative Language - Keep the Section 8 "SMTPUTF8 Transition Considerations" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai#section-8 ) normative language 2. Change to Non-Normative Language - Change Section 8 "SMTPUTF8 Transition Considerations" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai#section-8 ) to be non-normative, similar to Section 6 "Transition Considerations" of RFC 9154 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9154#section-6). 3. Use Hybrid Language - Use a hybrid of normative and non-normative language in Section 8 "SMTPUTF8 Transition Considerations" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai#section-8 ). The normative elements would be based on working group feedback. In reviewing a similar case of Section 6 "Transition Considerations" of RFC 9154 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9154#section-6), I would choose option 2 "Change to Non-Normative Language ". I would like to hear from others in the working group, including John Klensin. Thanks, -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 1/13/23, 3:46 PM, "regext on behalf of Andrew Newton" <regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of a...@hxr.us <mailto:a...@hxr.us>> wrote: Hi all, I was looking at the diffs between -16 and -17 of the EAI drafts, and the draft looks to have doubled in size since being submitted to the IESG. A lot of the new content are examples (always a good thing), but there has been some other normative language added. Does that need to be discussed in the WG? For example, one of the new sections is the transition section (8). On the whole, I think it is very good advice. But I fear it is too proscriptive for all cases. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Om45hXA5X8V7Cl1URO2L2OzrwliqUneTEwFpowYcyzVndcxfjmnt7RGOOUOuUpHJXpRuL1EmTqceQmJ9edDqaQy9UY-ltOpO5crGd8uVIeHERHZDr9GDaXx56QhXIWqDogj2FAbs_jZ0yEZApVaptZSbU9kYKlY1qxDEH3oUZAlgpEUVtv7B5OCtkPNPevwMI8q_HsHBtZVUt7qkiokHzK9WedemVr6KX9iPds37OzRCmTZaJtuaqTjkuRP3FS0llwZFYrbao5ERPciM0_YCLp7vYpfri5N9yhhZYGR9jLk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Om45hXA5X8V7Cl1URO2L2OzrwliqUneTEwFpowYcyzVndcxfjmnt7RGOOUOuUpHJXpRuL1EmTqceQmJ9edDqaQy9UY-ltOpO5crGd8uVIeHERHZDr9GDaXx56QhXIWqDogj2FAbs_jZ0yEZApVaptZSbU9kYKlY1qxDEH3oUZAlgpEUVtv7B5OCtkPNPevwMI8q_HsHBtZVUt7qkiokHzK9WedemVr6KX9iPds37OzRCmTZaJtuaqTjkuRP3FS0llwZFYrbao5ERPciM0_YCLp7vYpfri5N9yhhZYGR9jLk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
